Grounding cable shields

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
As I mentioned before pin 1 of the XLR should be tied to the ground immediately where it is mounted onto the chassis. The scheme JMAN has given in his diagram is already a bad idea in terms of pin 1 earth connections.

If he is using a plastic enclosure (which is even a worse idea) then he may need to do that, and yes keeping the earth wire as short as possible would be a good design practice but not hugely important if it is a few inches longer.
I knew if I put that drawing up that everyone was going to fixate on that aspect. 😅 It was just a simple quick illustration that was partially borrowed (I just changed a few details), and since my question wasn’t about the grounding of those wires, I was hoping it wouldn’t become the focal point of the discussion. FWIW, I am grounding my xlrs at the connector, and I’m not using a plastic enclosure.

As for the screens for the signal wires used inside the case the situation is slightly different. Good practice would be to tie the screens on one end, and at a single point at the chassis/earth point near the IEC, so that all noise currents would run towards that point. The mistake would be to earth them on varying chassis points within the case. Now you have varying ground paths and that is an invitation to a problem.

This relates more directly to my original question (I don’t mind that the discussion has gone elsewhere, but I like getting opinions on what I was actually asking too).

I feel like I’m getting mixed messages in this thread, though. Based on what has been said, it seems that screened signal wires are useful for capacitive noise but not magnetic (which honestly was news to me...why have I been wearing this tinfoil hat, then? 😜 Joking!). And my AC lines — my main noise consideration — are going to be on the magnetic induction side of that, so screened wires won’t provide much useful protection. Instead, tightly twisted pairs (along with, I’m assuming, good spatial arrangement) will be the better option.

Does this mean that twisted pair shielded wire is a bad idea, though? I have plenty of that, and I figured it would provide extra (if, I guess, unnecessary) insurance. I can go either way, though.
 
But the inductance and capacitance of a wire (conductor) is another story as these will have effect on the signal, but not in the sense of reducing or increasing the wavelength, but as effect on signal attenuation.

It's not attenuation you need to worry about. The wire will actually amplify the RF at it's resonant frequency. All wires have resistance, inductance and capacitance. Below about 1kHz, resistance is dominant. But above that, the inductance is actually not completely insignificant and at RF the impedance of a short wire could be hundreds of ohms. This makes an RLC circuit that of course has a resonant frequency and as I'm sure you understand the inductive and capacitive reactance can resonate and amplify the signal by potentially quite a lot. Enough to radiate noise into the enclosure. So, as ccaudle already said, the wire is effectively an antenna that can transmit RF inside the enclosure at that resonant frequency.

There are more RF sources around us today then there ever have been so keeping those sources out is not really pedantic theory.
 
Last edited:
Possibly there was a potential for electrostatic interference, possibly the equipment designer did not understand physics very well.

Shielding of very low level signals over vaguely high impedance nets is important. It's not uncommon to have some pretty high impedance nets in old audio designs like running a small signal out to a 100K pot and back. These nets are vulnerable to imperfections in the enclosure or because RF is getting in through pin 1 of connectors as described in this thread or maybe some kind of switching noise from the supply or maybe so that the unit could be tested with the enclosure open or ...
 
Last edited:
This relates more directly to my original question (I don’t mind that the discussion has gone elsewhere, but I like getting opinions on what I was actually asking too).

My fault. Sorry. I brought up the pin 1 to ground thing. Still a good discussion to have.

I feel like I’m getting mixed messages in this thread, though. Based on what has been said, it seems that screened signal wires are useful for capacitive noise but not magnetic (which honestly was news to me...why have I been wearing this tinfoil hat, then? 😜 Joking!). And my AC lines — my main noise consideration — are going to be on the magnetic induction side of that, so screened wires won’t provide much useful protection. Instead, tightly twisted pairs (along with, I’m assuming, good spatial arrangement) will be the better option.

The screens actually do attenuate magnetic noise. Just not very well at low frequencies. If you're enclosure is all metal (and you don't have RF radiating inside because of the pin 1 thing) then you shouldn't have any RF for the screens to screen. The most likely source of noise within the enclosure is going to be magnetic in nature from rapidly switching currents from power supplies which are going to be in the range of 50-60 Hz for linear supplies 100kHz-200kHz for SMPS (which is still considered low frequency and certainly not RF). But a bad SMPS could be the variety where it switches off an inductor to generate a high voltage spike which could be electrostatic I suppose (not sure about that - I don't use or care for bad SMPS).

Does this mean that twisted pair shielded wire is a bad idea, though? I have plenty of that, and I figured it would provide extra (if, I guess, unnecessary) insurance. I can go either way, though.

It's not a bad idea. It's just not going to help because you don't really need both to twist and shield.

The twist is for cancelling equal and opposite AC generated magnetic fields emitted by the wires. But this implies that some decent current is being sloshed around. So it's largely important for supply lines but you might have a headphone amp or output transformer drive lines that could benefit from being twisted.

The shield is for shunting electromagnetic interference like hum from power cables in the walls and RF that is all around us.
 
Last edited:
Shielding of very low level signals over vaguely high impedance nets is important

Yes, unfortunately I did not take time to write out my assumptions, which is that the question was regarding solid state electronics with relatively low driving and receiving impedance.
You can look at it as a voltage divider, the driving impedance and voltage level, the parasitic capacitance between the interference source voltage and the receiver, and the receiving impedance, and work out what the capacitively coupled interference at the receiver would be.

Not directly about analog electronics, but "High-Speed Digital Design: A Handbook of Black Magic" by Johnson and Graham has a lot of good information on crosstalk in digital circuits that can be generalized to any type of circuit once you grasp the fundamentals being presented.
Also good is "Grounding and Shielding Techniques" by Ralph Morrison and "Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronic Systems" by Henry Ott, both considered classic texts on the subject. The reprint of the June 1995 special issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society just dealt with grounding and shielding concerns in audio equipment, no longer available as hard copy reprint but still available as a PDF download, definitely one to have on the bookshelf.


it seems that screened signal wires are useful for capacitive noise but not magnetic

For power line noise, which is what the original post asked about specifically. The considerations become different once the frequency is high enough to be considered RF, wherever you want to draw that line in your particular situation, usually anywhere from a few MHz upward, with a transition region between LF and RF where multiple effects are in play so you either have to cover all your bases, or decide what is most important and just concentrate on that.

Also, I was assuming typical copper type shield braid, the effectiveness of shielding against magnetic interference depends on thickness and magnetic permeability, so a thick steel conduit can be an effective magnetic shield, but a copper braid is not. Probably thick steel conduit to route your control wiring is not practical.

People have literally written entire books on the subject, so it is a little difficult to make sure to cover all the important points in a 100 word forum post.
 
I already listed the Morrison and Ott books in the reference book post above.

One minor caveat, those books written back in the 70s were dealing with a different world for RF noise, that said the laws of physics remain unchanged.

JR
 
Saying "wavelength of the rf depends on the wire length" is just wrong. The wavelength of RF depends only on its frequency - and the velocity of light, but that's not an issue here ;). As previously stated, wire length determines how efficient it will be as either a radiator of RF or a receiver of it.

While I'm posting, I'd like to say that one should be careful to dismiss a non-switching power supply as a source of RF interference. Many ordinary rectifier diodes will have substantial "reverse recovery time" (when the voltage across it reverses, it continues to conduct briefly - the "recovery" time). And, worse yet, many will rather instantaneously "snap" off, generating harmonics into the hundreds of kHz or higher. The wiring attached to the rectifiers will radiate both an electric and magnetic field. If you look closely at many linear power supply designs, you'll see capacitors across the diodes (10 nF is typical) - they are there to slow the turn-off transient of the diodes. I've heard some nasty-sounding "buzz" in audio gear that was completely cured by installing such capacitors. It's always best to stop this kind of stuff right where it's created - in this case the diodes. There are many more "parasitic" components and processes in electronic systems than most engineers appreciate!
 
Hi Everyone,

I have a question regarding the grounding of shields. This is both practical for a build I'm thinking about, and theoretical (if there is any general theory to be gleaned here).

Below, I've attached a simple diagram of how the various ground points of the project are intended to be connected. However, in an effort to "overbuild" somewhat,* I have chosen to use shielded cable for the various front panel connections. There are not enough convenient ground pads on the main boards to connect the shields on that end (they are probably overkill and not completely necessary, and thus were not anticipated on the pcb), so my thought was to connect them all to a bus wire at the front panel instead end and run that off to ground. And yes, they will only be connected at that end. My question is this: as you can see, several of the other ground points "touch base" at the PSU, from which they are all connected to the bolt on the chassis. Does it make sense for me to also send the ground bus to that same point on the PSU, or directly to the chassis? Does it make a difference / is there a reason why, either way?

*The primary reason for the shielded wires is that my front panel layout is a little different and many of these cables will run near-ish to the AC lines of the power switch, and I'd like some extra insurance against that noise.
I have used an isolated Cu bus bar (PS/Audio ground) for tying all the shields to. What is key is to strap the Cu bus bar to CHA Earth Ground in one location only (helps reduce ground loops and common mode noise. This Earth Ground needs to be technically correct, however all this depends on what level of 'goodness' you are chasing! Nothing is just perfect, so determine what you can live with.

Due to possible voltage differences between each of the equipment hardware grounds, many use 'telescoping' shields, i.e., cut the shield back at one end of the cable run (typically at the end with lowest gain, like an output). To help you with this task, consider a DIY 'Hummer'. Google it. Basically a low voltage AC power adapter like maybe 5 VAC output. Clip the 5 VAC to your point of interest and listen. First make sure your listening system is dead quiet! Go through your entire audio system, starting at playback monitor speaker system. If it hums, fix it. Next ...

I hope this helps.

Billy
 
Last edited:
This is a well inspected topic. Consider doing a search for past discussions and read carefully.

JR
Hey John,

I think at this point, this thread itself would be part of the search results. I posted this about a year and a half ago at a time when I was still trying to understand shielding and the very basics of grounding schemes (not that I’m an expert now, but I’ve come some way since then). As can be seen, I received lots of advice and helpful feedback, including from yourself, which was deeply appreciated as always. That said, the moment for “use the search bar” may have come at gone at this juncture.

-J
 
It is never too late to do a search IMO. New threads asking old questions often draw dubious responses.

There are many experts here and several have already posted to this thread. Perhaps I am just shouting at clouds (I'm old). In my experience some people don't appreciate how much of this is settled science, and has been for decades.

JR
 
It is never too late to do a search IMO. New threads asking old questions often draw dubious responses.

There are many experts here and several have already posted to this thread. Perhaps I am just shouting at clouds (I'm old). In my experience some people don't appreciate how much of this is settled science, and has been for decades.

JR
I'd agree that it's never too late to search. Certainly if I were to have further questions on this topic now, I'd be doing that. To be fair to me, that was also true prior to posting this thread -- which again, was a year and half ago and the issues I was uncertain about have been well and truly resolved -- but at that time I lacked some fundamental knowledge to decipher the information on even some of the more straightforward existing threads and how it pertained to the project in front of me. It wasn't about whether the science was settled, but rather me needing help understanding it. I think I just feel weird answering for a thread that I posted a year and a half ago with a question that I wasn't able to answer on my own at the time, which hasn't seen activity in quite some time and which you yourself responded to with helpful resources, just because someone decided to necropost (even he was just trying to be helpful)...

I know the internet is rife with folks who prefer to ask others to do the work for them before lifting a finger to find an answer on their own, but I can assure you that that is not me. I also know that a seasoned pro can easily lose sight of just how much distance there is between knowing absolutely nothing on day one and knowing enough to speak/understand at even a basic level on entry-level information, and when one is in that no-man's-land, sometimes the only option is to ask. Without meaning to sound argumentative, I wonder how many of the most experienced on this forum learned everything they know without a mentor or teacher (or just with a search bar)... Again, I do understand that you may see a thread like this as clutter, but it made a tangible difference in my self-education -- I have no background nor dedicated instruction in this subject, so it's all me spending hours and hours reading and trying to understand -- and I appreciate everyone who contributed to it, yourself included.
 
Last edited:
Much of the science around shield connections is covered in my seminars on this and allied subjects. See the slides at:
https://centralindianaaes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/indy-aes-2012-seminar-w-notes-v1-0.pdfI'd direct your attention particularly to pages 82, which address an equipment design issue that often makes matters far worse, and 88, which explains why a shield should never be lifted at the driven (signal source) end of a balanced cable. I'm considered by many to be a subject matter expert in this area and was made a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society because of my work and published papers. I've presented this seminar for over 25 years, including at MIT and other universities. I think my recommendations are pretty defensible with real science (rather than anecdotal "evidence"). A few practitioners have disagreed with me over the years but I've never lost an argument as long as it sticks to established theory and demonstrable results. The most important take-away is that, in balanced interfaces, the shield is NOT part of the signal path and that shield currents should have a pathway to return directly to the source of voltage that drives the current (either the power-line safety-ground system or the audio line driver. This path should avoid any signal return paths inside equipment (as shown on page 82).
 
Saying "wavelength of the rf depends on the wire length" is just wrong. The wavelength of RF depends only on its frequency - and the velocity of light, but that's not an issue here ;). As previously stated, wire length determines how efficient it will be as either a radiator of RF or a receiver of it.

While I'm posting, I'd like to say that one should be careful to dismiss a non-switching power supply as a source of RF interference. Many ordinary rectifier diodes will have substantial "reverse recovery time" (when the voltage across it reverses, it continues to conduct briefly - the "recovery" time). And, worse yet, many will rather instantaneously "snap" off, generating harmonics into the hundreds of kHz or higher. The wiring attached to the rectifiers will radiate both an electric and magnetic field. If you look closely at many linear power supply designs, you'll see capacitors across the diodes (10 nF is typical) - they are there to slow the turn-off transient of the diodes. I've heard some nasty-sounding "buzz" in audio gear that was completely cured by installing such capacitors. It's always best to stop this kind of stuff right where it's created - in this case the diodes. There are many more "parasitic" components and processes in electronic systems than most engineers appreciate!
Hello Bill,

Thanks for posting these pdf's, they are interesting reading.

I was wondering if you could expand on your thoughts for the use of CAT5/6 for audio cabling that you mention briefly on page 98 of your pdf. There seems to be a small trend in people using it. I have recently been at a facility that uses it and have been rather dubious about any benefits other than cost it might have.
 
HI, sorry for the very late reply ... guess this one "slipped through the cracks"!!

As far as I can tell, the only driver of this trend is cost-savings. Cables and connectors are a fraction of the cost of good audio connectors - and it will work acceptably well in lots of "near ideal" environments (ground loop and RFI threats are low). It's always more robust to use the shielded cables and connectors but that adds to the price. Strangely, shielded CAT-x is very popular in Europe but not so much in the US.
 
Shielded CAT is popular over here in the chemistry industry. They tend to over-spec. I've never seen much in office environments or other industries.

And it's also very popular with AV engineers, for audio, or even video over STP. As MisterCMRR wrote, you don't usually need the shield, but, given the choice, most will buy shielded as the cost difference is minor if you shop around a bit.
 
Shielded CAT is popular over here in the chemistry industry. They tend to over-spec. I've never seen much in office environments or other industries.

And it's also very popular with AV engineers, for audio, or even video over STP. As MisterCMRR wrote, you don't usually need the shield, but, given the choice, most will buy shielded as the cost difference is minor if you shop around a bit.

It's terminating the screen that is often an issue with STP.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top